TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court overturns suspension due to Chief Minister's personal vendetta, citing mala fides.</h1> <h3>S. Pratap Singh Versus The State Of Punjab</h3> The Court found that the orders recalling the appellant from leave, placing him under suspension, and initiating an inquiry were within the legal powers ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of the orders recalling the appellant from leave, placing him under suspension, and initiating an inquiry.2. Allegation of mala fides by the Chief Minister in passing the impugned orders.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Orders:The appellant challenged the legality of three orders passed by the State Government:- Recalling from Leave: The appellant argued that recalling him from leave was illegal as per the Service Rules. However, Rule 8.15 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules states, 'Leave cannot be claimed as of right. When the exigencies of the public services so require, discretion to refuse or revoke leave of any description is reserved to the authority empowered to grant it.' This indicates that the authority had the discretion to revoke leave.- Placing Under Suspension: The appellant contended that a government servant on leave preparatory to retirement cannot be suspended. However, the Court held that a government servant remains in service until formally retired, and suspension is valid even if the officer is on leave.- Initiating an Inquiry: The appellant argued that no formal charges were framed before the suspension. The Court clarified that suspension can precede formal charges and is valid if the government deems it necessary to investigate allegations of misconduct.2. Allegation of Mala Fides:The appellant alleged that the orders were passed due to personal hostility from the Chief Minister. The Court examined several incidents to determine if mala fides were established:- Operation on the Chief Minister's Son: The appellant claimed he performed an operation on the Chief Minister's son, which was denied by the son. Tape-recorded conversations suggested an operation occurred, but the Court found no direct evidence linking the Chief Minister's hostility to this incident.- Requests for Favours: The appellant presented documents showing recommendations from the Chief Minister and his family. The Court found no evidence that these requests were improper or that the appellant's refusal led to hostility.- Supply of Medicines and Sewing Machines: The appellant provided postal receipts and tape-recorded conversations indicating he supplied medicines and sewing machines to the Chief Minister's family. The Court found this established a friendly relationship but did not prove subsequent hostility.- Other Allegations: The appellant cited several other incidents, including the Chief Minister's dissatisfaction with his handling of a murder case and the Chief Minister's alleged demands for favours. The Court found these allegations insufficient to prove mala fides.Conclusion:The Court held that the orders recalling the appellant from leave, placing him under suspension, and initiating an inquiry were within the legal powers of the State Government. However, the Court found that the impugned orders were motivated by an improper purpose, i.e., personal vendetta by the Chief Minister, and thus were vitiated by mala fides. Consequently, the orders were set aside. The appeal was allowed, but no costs were awarded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
